AAP shifting FGM polocy

[ursaminor]

I thought I would pass this on, a lot of Intactivists and FGM awareness people have been posting on facebook about the AAP's shifting language on FGM - now being referred to as FGC (female genital cutting) and more 'cultural sensitivity" in regards to parents wanted the procedure, and dissuading parents from seeking "harmful forms of FGC". Here is a link to the abstract and a comparison to the old statement, apparently not found on the AAP's site anymore...

http://www.circumstitions.com/AAP.html

ETA sorry for the typos I'm a bit of a dyslexic:P

[titania8]

Wow. That is seriously disturbing.

[laohaire]

So there are unharmful forms of genital cutting?

[Fyrestorm]

Wait...Wait...Wait....so the AAP is changing their position on a procedure that's illegal in the US anyway. Weird and scary

[dachshundqueen]

In reading the actual policy statement that can be downloaded as PDF, I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions here.

What I am garnering from the policy statement is that pediatricians need to be more aware that there are strong cultural and religious reasons that some parents seek out FGM, and that as pediatricians they need to understand those reasons in order to best dissuade parents from either seeking to have the procedure done to their child or attempting to do it themselves.

What I do find disturbing is the language stating that a ritual nick performed by the pediatrician would build trust between hopsitals/doctors and the immigrant community and would be a good compromise. The softening of the AAP stance that this "milder" form of FGM is acceptable is mind boggling. How the AAP can in one paragraph state that this is acceptable and in the next state that parents need to be reminded that any form of FGM is illegal in the USA is beyond me.

"....pediatricians must always resist decisions that are likely to harm children." (1092, upper right hand corner) Which is ridiculous because the first part of that paragraph is about male circumcision - and that doesn't cause HARM??????

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ds.2010-0187v1

Liz

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by dachshundqueen

In reading the actual policy statement that can be downloaded as PDF, I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions here.

I am not sure what part of the drawn conclusion you feel are wrong; they (the AAP) are softening their policy. Whereas before they stated that Physicians shouldn't under any circumstances perform this for any reason, they are now saying these mild forms might be considered as a substitute. That is a shift in policy.

[ursaminor]

Originally Posted by dachshundqueen

What I do find disturbing is the language stating that a ritual nick performed by the pediatrician would build trust between hopsitals/doctors and the immigrant community and would be a good compromise. The softening of the AAP stance that this "milder" form of FGM is acceptable is mind boggling. How the AAP can in one paragraph state that this is acceptable and in the next state that parents need to be reminded that any form of FGM is illegal in the USA is beyond me.

"....pediatricians must always resist decisions that are likely to harm children." (1092, upper right hand corner) Which is ridiculous because the first part of that paragraph is about male circumcision - and that doesn't cause HARM??????

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ds.2010-0187v1

Liz

I have not read the entire publication...I'm trying to find a minute when I am in the best head space and DS isnt needing me. Are they truly saying it is okay for a ped to preform a "nick"? is the said nick, removal of the clitoral prepuce?...and isnt that, illegal? (-although I might add, peds still preform clitoroplasty on female intersex children and babies without fear of being prosecuted)
This is all very weird, and I think it is the AAP's way of dealing with the hypocrisy between their MGM and FGM stance. Very scary indeed, and only a few days away from the CDC's new statement

[dachshundqueen]

You were speaking to:

Regarding being more culturally aware, if pediatricians actually take the time to learn the history (both cultural and religious) of FGM they can use that knowledge to actually hold a decent discussion with the parent on not doing FGM. IE. An intelligent pedi will try to find counterpoints to the main religious and cultural reasons for doing FGM, rather than saying, "Just don't do it, it's illegal." Moreso meeting the parent where they are.

Whereas:

The more important item in the article and shift in policy is regarding the actual suggestion by the AAP that the "nick" would be an acceptable compromise (even though the AAP acknowledges that this is still illegal currently and constitutes child abuse!!!).

Does that make sense?

Liz

[Claire and Boys]

I never saw this coming. I really think it is an attempt to address the double standard that we have been pointing out for years. I think it has a LOT to do with the upcoming CDC statement and am quite nervous now about what that might contain in the light of this.

[Fyrestorm]

Originally Posted by Claire and Boys

I never saw this coming. I really think it is an attempt to address the double standard that we have been pointing out for years. I think it has a LOT to do with the upcoming CDC statement and am quite nervous now about what that might contain in the light of this.

Me too...get Peds to think FGM is ok and what does that mean for MGM?

[Galatea]

Originally Posted by Claire and Boys

I never saw this coming. I really think it is an attempt to address the double standard that we have been pointing out for years. I think it has a LOT to do with the upcoming CDC statement and am quite nervous now about what that might contain in the light of this.

I agree. They are trying to appear less hypocritical.

But there is STILL no right way to do a wrong thing.

[kittywitty]

Originally Posted by laohaire

So there are unharmful forms of genital cutting?

Seriously!!!

This is so disturbing.

[glongley]

Originally Posted by Claire and Boys

I never saw this coming. I really think it is an attempt to address the double standard that we have been pointing out for years. I think it has a LOT to do with the upcoming CDC statement and am quite nervous now about what that might contain in the light of this.

My interpretation is that (despite the fact that Federal Law says even the slightest nick or pinprick to female genitals is illegal) they are trying to maintain the acceptability of what we currently do the baby boys, by making anything done to a female that seems no more serious than that be pronounced 'unharmful.' Therefore confirming that male circumcision is unharmful.

It is seriously mindboggling that of the two ways they could go to try to address the double standard in how we view female vs. male genital cutting, they choose the one that makes FGC more OK, rather than the one that makes MGC not OK. YIKES!

Gillian

[Claire and Boys]

Yep. The lengths that they will go to to push male infant circumcision. Now selling out infant girls as well.

I doubt very much that any other medical organisation worldwide would echo this. This IMO really puts a large dent in the AAP's credibility.

What I'm hoping is that FGM orgs will see this and finally people will start working together to end all nonconsensual genital cutting - regardless of what body part it is done on. For too long have people said "Hey, female circ is worse, so that means male circ is okay." This shows that we cannot be complacent about *either*. It's all essentially the same - children getting their body parts cut on with no medical justification and without their consent.

[KaylaBeanie]

I guess I'm just an unpassionate cynic. At least the AAP has grown some balls and leveled the playing field. MGC is "okay"? Well, now girls are viewed equally. Yay for equality At least they're consistent?

I honestly don't think it's worth the stress of getting worked up over. Regardless of strange AAP policy changes, FGC is still illegal and that isn't set to change. If a group of people push to make it legal, you can bet that every single feminist group in America will be up in arms. In fact, part of me hopes that happens. It will get a TON of media coverage, and it would be impossible to discuss the new policy without mention of MGC, and it would be a great opportunity for the higher up intactivists to speak at events, rallies and on tv shows. This is no different than if the AAP said that cultural tattooing of infants/minors might not be THAT bad. Doesn't matter what they think, the law is the law.

[2boyzmama]

Excuse me while I go throw up.

[frontierpsych]

Echoing what everyone else has said. It is really sad. So many people inside and outside this organization are knee deep in denial about this issue, and will do anything to cover it up.

[Rico'sAlice]

Originally Posted by KaylaBeanie

I This is no different than if the AAP said that cultural tattooing of infants/minors might not be THAT bad.

Is that illegal? Interesting. Aside from circumcision I'm also thinking of the comparison to infant ear piercing. I realize I'm getting off track, but I wonder if there are their laws restricting non-ear lobe piercing (nose, etc.) of infants/small children.

[Pookietooth]

Yikes! I understand wanting to be culturally sensitive, but what about bodily integrity? Isn't that a basic human right?

[KaylaBeanie]

Originally Posted by Rico'sAlice

Is that illegal? Interesting. Aside from circumcision I'm also thinking of the comparison to infant ear piercing. I realize I'm getting off track, but I wonder if there are their laws restricting non-ear lobe piercing (nose, etc.) of infants/small children.

Hmm, upon googling it would appear that tattooing/piercing is not explicitly illegal provided there is parental consent.

http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/H...3/Default.aspx

I happen to remember a few cases in the news where parents got in trouble for tattooing minor children, but I'm not sure if it was the tattoo itself that was illegal or the circumstances surrounding it. I do know that I have seen pre-teen Indian children here in the states with pierced noses though, so I can't imagine it's illegal. I'm big into piercings and tattoos, and I know that even if laws "allow" it with parental consent, every shop I've been to has a policy of no ear piercing before age 12, and then non-genital/nipple/tongue piercings allowed with parental consent at age 16. So it would appear to be a gray area. By these laws, it wouldn't be illegal if a parent consented for a child to be pierced or tattooed.